for claiming to be unpopular when he's probably the most popular one out of all of us
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
If you choose the right people you can make a "good impression" on them and they're convinced you're town. Then they don't even have to work so hard to fool people in thread cuz they got a townie to do that.Friend wrote:I agree with vollkan completely. That's what I had in mind when I suggested it. And I highly doubt that the level of popularity is tied to anything (PR-ness, alignment) so I don't think claiming it is rolefishing, like you said xite. Also, xite, why do you think scum would be able to fool a townie in the QT, when if they're that good at playing scum, they'll probably just be fooling them in the thread anyways?
I could have sworn I posted these exact wordsAndrius wrote:I second this, given that it is a massclaim.Friend wrote: Xite, what popularity level are you?
Uhm, can I just say something real quick?vollkan wrote:+2. Noob scum throwing out a fishing line to see if there is support for an utterly insane idea.Xite wrote: By the way, would quick lynches be good in this game? Considering the nifty neighborizing idea?
How was that a joke? It could have been a joke if you'd said: "Wow, neighbouring sounds awesome; let's quicklynch to get to it", but you didn't. You asked a question to everybody, and then claimed it as a joke when the idea was swiftly kicked.xite wrote: ok, just wondering
that was a joke
+2 Great. Thankyou for admitting you just lied.Xite wrote: I am too,but I figured this might be a special circumstance
Unvote, Vote: Xite
Xite91 wrote:Ooh, ooh pick me!
Looks like we're going to lynch Tasky anyways
By the way, would quick lynches be good in this game? Considering the nifty neighborizing idea?
hehe three way quicktopic
Also, it's kind of hard to take that out of context if you're not selectively readingXite91 wrote:well, I actually just noticed a way you can tell
I usually postafter a joke
There was no VT soft claimFriend wrote:I'm still curious to the reasoning behind the soft VT claim. Generating discussion doesn't seem to be enough.
Ok, so you're the one that started this whole mass popularity claim idea right?Friend wrote:Andrius and others: What are the pros and cons of a mass-popularity level claim? I'm fairly new to this whole thing so if this is a dumb idea please tell me
So you just want to because it could help neighborizing? but not scum hunting... hmmFriend wrote:I know that a mass popularity number claim wouldn't be hugely beneficial in terms of scumhunting, but it would help ensure success at neighborizing. That's all I wanted to get.
Then what was with the VT claim statement before??Friend wrote:I agree with vollkan completely. That's what I had in mind when I suggested it. And I highly doubt that the level of popularity is tied to anything (PR-ness, alignment) so I don't think claiming it is rolefishing, like you said xite. Also, xite, why do you think scum would be able to fool a townie in the QT, when if they're that good at playing scum, they'll probably just be fooling them in the thread anyways?
I like this idea too. But yeah, we should wait 'til everyone's said their piece on the matter before we start claiming numbers.
So you're the one pushing it again...Friend wrote:I think most of us are in favor of this...so who wants to start? Andrius and then we can just popcorn from there, or go by the playerlist, or have everyone shout it out at once, doesn't really matter.
1) Considering everyone's idea that lies = scum, that is a big riskvollkan wrote:Interesting point. I'm not sure if it is a flaw, though. My reasoning proceeds as follows:
1) Assuming that such a role could be used in passing periodnand then the target has the new rank in passing periodn + 1, then the biggest risk is simply that the person they speak to, if it is somsebody that they could not have spoken to before, will accuse them of having lied about their ranking.
2) However, we already know that it will be impossible for scum to lie at the initial claim stage because they will get counterclaimed.
3) Accordingly, any purported change in popularity ranking will have to be true
The fact that the changes would be caused by a power role (though, we don't know of what alignment) instinctively makes me think that such changes should not be changed. Reason being is that, as a general rule I think, a person would want to increase the ranking of somebody they consider pro-town (so as to give them more choice) and decrease the ranking of somebody they suspect (so as to reduce their ability to pick their scumbuddies and avoid exposure to the town); hence, claiming changes, (publicly, since people might well target somebody they think is likely town and tell them about the change) could out a PR. So, at this stage I don't think changes should be publicly claimed.
The problem is that saying "Target the person below you" or any other rigid formulation removes any ability of town to individually target and interrogate a particular player they suspect, or collaborate with somebody they think is town. Hence, we need to have a free choice; in which case, we need to claim those choices and (because reasons are always good) the reasons why.Prana wrote: Regarding the bolded bit there, they wouldn't be able to. If we all said "target the person below you in the list" then anyone who didn't would be automatically pointed out as scum. They would basically be forced into neighboring with the person below them or being known as scum.
But if you look at the order of operations, that is a terrible explanationFriend wrote:I asked you the question because you hadn't mentioned Tasky up to that point, just voted him for the sake of "helping push him."
Friend wrote:Oh...
I was gonna ask but I didn't want to rolefish. Why do you feel the need to out that so early?
But I thought you said that prs weren't linked to popularity in your opinion?Friend wrote:No, I didn't want to rolefish. If I had gone ooh Andrius tell me more about your unpopularity I guarantee someone would have called me out for rolefishing. Just wanted to make sure you were okay with saying your unpopularity publicly before I said anything.
But later you agree with max?Friend wrote:I like this idea too. But yeah, we should wait 'til everyone's said their piece on the matter before we start claiming numbers.Tasky wrote:I think it would be best that everyone at night talks to the one who is just one step under them in the popularity scala, so that everyone (save nr.1 and nr.12) has 2 neighbors and there is no one who doesn't have a neighbor...
It was just interesting to me that with minimal discussion from you or really not even that much on that topic you went from one end of the spectrum to the other.Friend wrote:My mind has changed over the course of the game. It happens. People made logical, convincing arguments as to why certain things were/weren't true (popularity-PR link, the "one person below you idea"). I agreed with them. Since when is that a scumtell?
1) how?NicolBolas wrote:I’m just reading thru the game and typing my thoughts when they come to me.
1)I believe that freedom to choose whoever you want to befriend is the way to go, because of what somebody brought up- Scum can just take advantage of the extra information to plan their nightkills accordingly.
2)@xite- I do not think its a good idea to have short days. It gives us less information to work with.
3)I think it would be a bad idea to claim who we befriended, until it is necessary, because if we claim, scum can use that information.
4)Also, I think that the day is more important than the night, because there are much more people to analyze information in posts. so I think we really need to reduce the discussion about the neighborizing issue. it is distracting me from reading people.
5)My dislike of xite is because he is confusing me.
@xite, I do not see where friend is buddying up to people. can you point this out to me?
I know this was in response to rvs but lookie hereFriend wrote:And Andrius, we can be friends!
Why add Andrius instead of just saying everyone?Friend wrote:Andriusand others: What are the pros and cons of a mass-popularity level claim? I'm fairly new to this whole thing so if this is a dumb idea please tell me
Again why him?Friend wrote:I think most of us are in favor of this...so who wants to start?Andriusand then we can just popcorn from there, or go by the playerlist, or have everyone shout it out at once, doesn't really matter.
Not exactly buddying up, but could lead to more of itFriend wrote:Tasky, what do you hope to acheive with your wagon? There's nothing vollkan can defend himself from. I mean, my vote was on there cause of a Phoenix Wright-related avatar. Wagoning for the sake of wagoning isn't going to accomplish anything. Now, wagoning some scummy, like yourself, can.
In regards to the first part, this isn't the only time he whole-heartedly agrees with someone.Friend wrote:I agree with vollkan completely. That's what I had in mind when I suggested it. And I highly doubt that the level of popularity is tied to anything (PR-ness, alignment) so I don't think claiming it is rolefishing, like you said xite. Also, xite, why do you think scum would be able to fool a townie in the QT, when if they're that good at playing scum, they'll probably just be fooling them in the thread anyways?
I like this idea too. But yeah, we should wait 'til everyone's said their piece on the matter before we start claiming numbers.Tasky wrote:I think it would be best that everyone at night talks to the one who is just one step under them in the popularity scala, so that everyone (save nr.1 and nr.12) has 2 neighbors and there is no one who doesn't have a neighbor...
Another agreement, completely opposite to the one before. Yes this wouldn't be scummy on it's own, but you, Friend, seem to be trying to appeal to everyone, something I mostly see in scumFriend wrote:I agree with Max.
That's at least 3 right?Friend wrote: And why would you like to start a wagon on vollkan, who has arguably been one of the most pro-town players so far in this early game?
1) May have missed it, will re-read. I really think it was him first (I went back and checked on the first person to mention it when I made my big post of things, part of the reason I noticed friend at all)Andrius wrote:1) To be fair, I think I mentioned it first, and vollkan claimed first.Xite wrote: Ok, so you're the one that started this whole mass popularity claim idea right?
2) I noticed that you didn't bother mentioning me at all in that big post of interesting things. :/ This like reverse buddying?
3) Look at your role in your role PM, and see if it could explain your spot on the popularity ladder. That's why I think popularity is nonrandom.NicolBolas wrote: @andrius, I dont know, it was just a question. (popularity being nonrandom)
4) Ok, so I'm really torn on some of the players, namely Friend, Xite and Tasky. They're all relatively new here, so I keep looking at some actions as n00by (including some of the buddying, but again, I was the most active poster.) However, while they are newbies, they did sign up for a theme game, which is inherently harder, so they brought this on themselves, in a way.
And yes, that is my question. It seems to me that buddying is almost always a scumtell. Maybe not every time but a lot of the time.Friend wrote:How isn't buddying a scumtell? Is that your question?
And you have a wrong definition of AtE btw. Agreeing with people is not AtE.
First, other than the wagon on one and the extreme suspicion on the other, how are we obvious targets? Second, yes, I'm stating a case, I won't post the quotes I need for such case? WTF?Sando wrote:Xites wall-o-text seems like scum desperation.
Prana makes an excellent point about scum being unable to simply not neighbourise someone, further reinforces max's points.
The first sentence, I will show you why you feel that way in about 10 secondsNicolBolas wrote:@xite- I'm unsure on how to approach you. Your case on friend is full of crap. Do you have any stronger evidence that friend is scummy other than what you pointed out?
First, easy targets much?NicolBolas wrote:I'm not sure what to make out of the interaction between Sando and Tasky. On one hand, it looks like Sando is truly attacking Tasky, and Tasky is OMGUSsing, But on the other hand, Tasky has a good point about Sando' weak reasoning. hmm.
I still think that scum can be found in Xite.
Slightly, considering if planned correctly, everyone can have 4 neighbors by night 3... just sayinNicolBolas wrote:@Tasky, on the contrary. neighbors targeted on N1 will take effect on N2. So if scum knows who the targets are on N1, they can plan kills on that knowledge, on N1. If people have freedom to choose, Scum will not have that knowledge until D3, so that would help the town, i think. Am i incorrect in my thinking here?
Friend wrote:Other than that, I don't really get your case on me.It would be poor modding to tie popularity levels to PR-ness, IMO (as in the top 3 most popular students are PRs, the bottom 3 are scum, whatever).
I called vollkan pro-town because that was the feeling I got from him. Nothing more, nothing less.
I asked you the question because you hadn't mentioned Tasky up to that point, just voted him for the sake of "helping push him."
Do you find me asking for the popularity claim scummy?I don't see why it would be.
Friend wrote:I said "arguably." There's a difference.
How would PRs be based on popularity? That makes breaking this game way too easy.
I still don't get the case by the way. Calling someone pro-town is not a scumtell, what I did was not rolefishing, and other than that...I don't think you have anything.
Friend wrote:I agree with Max.
Xite,I got my order of things mixed up then. Sue me.I wanted to know your opinion, that's the point.
Friend wrote:LOL
Quote-by-quote:
1. RVS comment
2. He was the only one posting in-thread at the time
3. He volunteered to claim first
4. ??? That's not buddying
5. Agreeing with people...whoa
6. See above
7. vollkan was, in my mind, acting very pro-town. That's the only one that I guess could be buddying, but even that is not a scumtell.
No AtE (show it to me) and no buddying. Get your facts straight.
Those bolded times? That's all the times he responded to my case by saying, oh you're wrongFriend wrote:Xite's case is laughably poor, but I'm not entirely sold on him being scum yet.
Teehee, youre funnyMax wrote:Xite, get a grip. Your caseisweak. It can be forgiven, however, as Friend shouldn't shrug it off just because it's a weak case. It isn't well formulated and in the first few pages I don't feel that friend should have said that he thinks people are town. Though that's not enough to lynch someone.
Questions to All
- Do you feel that The Playeroneabove you on the ranking list is scum?
- If you had to choose now who would you lynch?
- Who do you think is most town at this time?
I would like evidence and from these 11 posts I will determine who I feel is town and scum.
First, Uhm, if it was a free choice, scum could just pair up with scum (if you're going with the idea that scum want to avoid townies like the plague)NicolBolas wrote:@Xite- I saw the same thing that friend did. What i see in the bolded parts is friend not getting your case against friend, then you are now using that against friend. I do not like this. Friend is not dismissing your case as nothing IMO, it is your case that is weak. I am not sure what you mean by "easy targets much?". What i saw was Tasky and Sando attacking each other. It just struck me oddly. About the neighborzing thing, my concern is not in night three, but night two. Hypothetically, if scum knew the plan for neighborzing, they would be able to eliminate both of an single person's neighbors, rendering that person worthless in discussing what happened during the night. Also, a preset plan prevents the town to scumhunt during the night.
2) I would lynch xite. I feel that his case on friend is useless, and when attacked for it, he seems to be panicking a little. Pulls out crap reasoning, really.
First one, i was just curious how we were easy targets.Sando wrote:andXite wrote:First, other than the wagon on one and the extreme suspicion on the other, how are we obvious targets?So I'm silly for suggesting that you and Trasky are easy targets for being the top 2 suspects, not to mention the reasons for being the top 2 suspects, but you feel the need to attack NicolBolas for bringing up 'easy targets'? Hypocritical much?Xite wrote:First, easy targets much?
Oh, I'm sorry, don't recall you saying why, just recall you saying it was and shrugging it off.Friend wrote:Oh, should have explained the xite vote - he's my second suspect, mostly for the extremely poor case he laid out on me + pushing said case after I explained why it was poor.
I dare you to point out the posts where I say this.vollkan wrote:Xite wrote: Sando seems a little too aggressive.Xite wrote: Aggressiveness is not bad, but I think Sando is being a little overagressive. Scum is usually more aggressive than town.
+2
Aggression is NOT a scumtell and accusing Sando of being "overaggressive" is just throwing around an empty smear label that discredits him despite not actually relating to any flaw in his argument. Aggression is entirely a playstyle thing.
Why is it getting stronger?Xite wrote: First, I admitted that my original case was weak, but it's getting stronger, at least in my mind.
Friend wrote: Sando seems a little too aggressive.
So who's your +2 on now?Friend wrote: Aggressiveness is not bad, but I think Sando is being a little overagressive. Scum is usually more aggressive than town.
Uhm, considering that your last post was to VV and something about an alt?Friend wrote:xite, you didn't even respond to my last post. You saying I'm ignoring or shrugging off your case is a blatant lie.
Also:
UNVOTE: xite91
VOTE: Tasky
I'll put more pressure on. I think VV has a point about xite's overeagerness.
then I responded with postFriend wrote:LOL
Quote-by-quote:
1. RVS comment
2. He was the only one posting in-thread at the time
3. He volunteered to claim first
4. ??? That's not buddying
5. Agreeing with people...whoa
6. See above
7. vollkan was, in my mind, acting very pro-town. That's the only one that I guess could be buddying, but even that is not a scumtell.
No AtE (show it to me) and no buddying. Get your facts straight.
also, on 1 I said it was in RVS in the first place, and that it didn't seem like buddying until 2 and 3Xite91 wrote:Uhm, I just showed you how it's AtE
considering that you're agreeing with everyone and all
1) yeah, but with the next two, you should see my point
2) Seraphim and I did too
3) I don't recall, but that makes some sense
you were throwing his name out a lot though, makes me suspicious
4) said that, then said that it could lead up to it
5) AtE (agreeing with people like you have been seems like it to me)
6) ^
7) How isn't it?
pretty sure I have my facts straight
Again, I did dispute this and you ignored it, twice.Friend wrote:If you say telling not to quicklynch is a nulltell, then why do you think my motivation is scum-based? I got back on the wagon because I felt enough time had passed and you were acting just as scummy. My thoughts on xite were also somewhat swayed by VV.
What, specifically, about the buddying argument do you like?Do you realize that I've shown how all of xite's examples were extremely poor?
Okay so let me make this clearerXite91 wrote:Thing is I'm pretty sure you're not tunneling when you have other suspects and are working on a case for them,but can't get it quite right and therefore.don't want to cause even more mass hysteriawhen people are finally putting a little bet of suspicion on you,the person that I would prefer to be lynched today
I lol'd a little. Haven't been keeping up with the game, TBH. I'm working on a read-thru, will post when I've finished it though. Until then, carry on good people!Andrius wrote:Hi Xite. Long time no see.
Do you still find Friend's slot scummy? I do. If you help me lynch him I'll neighborize you. <3
Interesting slip...Andrius wrote:Still waiting on 1/4 of the town.
This is like one of two games I'm alive in, so I am posting a bit much. lol
Hmmm.
His list of people that hadn't posted.Andrius wrote:Max
TheLonging
Sando
NicolBolas
No, those are a scumbuddy team, not a "If this guy is town, this one is scum"Parama wrote:Xite91 wrote:I'm thinking Parama/Andrius/Ray ATMThere goes even more of your logic against me.Xite91 wrote: Also, I like how you lined up the next lynch with the whole Andrius idea.
How should they? I think you're the one with the skewed logic here.Parama wrote: But by your logic against me, they SHOULD have something to do with Sando.
Using your role name as a reason for why you're not scum? I'm pretty sure that's gaming the modAndrius wrote:"Gaming the mod"? What is that supposed to mean?Xite91 wrote:And now he's clogging the thread, and gaming the mod...
Invote, Vote Andrius
Not clogging the thread. I'm posting, which is more than some people care to do.
AKA saying that "Why would the mod give me a role name like this as scum?"Xite91 wrote:Using your role name as a reason for why you're not scum?I'm pretty sure that's gaming the mod
Not exactly, that's what people use against each other, when its things about the setup, it's usually called gaming the mod.Andrius wrote:Oh.
That's called WIFOM, Xite.
Okay, then why should I take you at your word when you say your role-name makes it so you aren't scum?Andrius wrote:I didn't roleclaim.
I'm not at L-2 or higher and I'm in no imminent danger.
It was presumed that I had softclaimed twice D1, which I didn't do.
Unless the mod liked Hitler, then another big name could be scum.Andrius wrote:Its like this:
Let's say we're playing WWII leaders mafia.
If someone claims Hitler, he's probably scum.